Hi Mahesh - thanks for looking at this so quickly!
>> https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid7021 > > Reject: Agreed. Also note that YANG-next Issue #75 <https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/75> seeks to remove the `revision-date` statement altogether. Rob's "yang-next-agreement" document concurs <https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/75>. >> https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid8784 > > HDU: Actually, I'd consider Reject. YANG validation happens each time <intended> changes. The validation is conceptually holistic, and not sensitive to what the datastore had previously. I think that the RFC 7950 text is being misinterpreted. When writing "is removed", I think the text only means in the context of the example, and not specifically pointing to datastore per/post states. Besides, the paragraph the sentence is added to regards schema, not data, yet the sentence regards data. Even if it were an important clarification, it's on the wrong paragraph. Kent // contributor
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
